Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

College boys find their balls

Two UVA fraternities are standing up to the university administration's attempt to participate in a Maoist self-flagellation program:

So far two University of Virginia fraternities are refusing to sign a new Fraternity Operating Agreement to resume social activities. Alpha Tau Omega and Kappa Alpha have released nearly identical statements refusing to sign U.Va.’s new requirements that fraternities alter their activities following a two-month suspension on social activities. The new rules require a certain number of fraternity brothers to be sober and present and different places around the house and set limits on what kinds of alcohol can be served and in what containers.

The fraternities state two reasons for their refusal to sign on to these new rules.
The first reason is that U.Va., “for reasons that were found to be
untrue, unfairly punished all members of fraternities and sororities."
This is in reference to the Rolling Stone article claiming a woman was
gang raped at a Phi Kappa Psi party, which resulted in the social
activity ban (without any evidence other than the uncorroborated
accusation).

“Because we do not accept the validity of a suspension imposed in
contravention of the existing FOA, university policy, Virginia law and
the constitutional rights of our members, we are not compelled to sign a
revised FOA to continue operations on campus,” the fraternities wrote
in press releases that were put out separately but shared the same
language. The fraternities also state that their own risk management policies
“are as strict or more strict than this new FOA” and they will continue
to “comply with the more restrictive of the policies in its activities.”

The fraternities wrote, “We are concerned that the university’s
revision to the FOA may create new liability for individual members of
our organizations that is more properly a duty to be borne by the
university itself."

The statements also claim that the new rules “set a dangerous
precedent of an erosion of student and organizational rights,” but would
work with U.Va. to develop “risk management education.”

It would be better if they refused to play along at all and took the university to court on Title IX discrimination grounds, but it is a start. Men need to rid themselves of their instinct to apologize whenever a woman throws a hissy fit or hurls an accusation.

18 comments:

'The new rules require a certain number of fraternity brothers to be sober and present and different places around the house and set limits on what kinds of alcohol can be served and in what containers.'

Don't teach young women the dangers of getting drunk...teach men to do all these impossible tasks so that women can be safe while getting drunk.

No doubt, the new provisions would've called for "monitors" or "chaperones" who would be SJWs. Further, I have no doubt they would require training and earn a small stipend. Oh, and look at the new "fee" rolled out to pay for it, chargeable to the fraternities.

You know, I wonder what the RP knowledge penetration is on college campuses.

My nephew, approx. 26 years old, works 60 hours a week as a mechanic. never went to college, but isn't a dummy at all. However, he's also not a guy who surfs the web all day, like his lazy, entitled uncle. He found the Red Pill via reddit and is in the early stages, but he's spreading the word to his brothers.

So, I see a story like this and think, "It might hit the college system like a freight train in the next year." They social network, they have contacts with former brothers from the fraternity, and they have their own eyes.

Heck, we all knew something was amiss, but couldn't really put our finger on it until we were shown. Only in hindsight does it appear so obvious.

Owen, I had an intern to look after last year at work. He was 18. We were chatting and I was dropping some red pill ideas into the conversation when out of the blue (for I had never explicitly mentioned the RP to him), he said; 'Cadders, have you ever heard of the Red Pill - it sounds like something you would be interested in.'

Of course much further conversation ensued.

My point is that the RP is already out there amongst young men, unseen by the wider world, and likely not seen as a discrete 'thing' by the young men themselves. It just forms part of the cultural narrative they exist in. Their understanding of it is variable, as is the rate of adoption. But for many, they are, at the very least, no longer as clueless about women as their fathers likely were.

Interestingly, when the subject of marriage was brought up (by a colleague) this young man's response was an instantaneous; 'What?! - I'm NEVER getting married!'

And when discussing supporting a wife his response was genuine confusion; 'Why would I ever support a woman - they can support themselves.'

I think this is how the RP manifests itself in young men - they understand marriage as a risk and women as competitors at an unconscious level rather than a considered one and adapt their behavior accordingly.

Cadders,I would add that I think younger guys are typically reserved when discussing it, at first. They’ve been conditioned (like I was once) to be on PC guard, to not offend, to be wary of what’s said and what’s written down. Once they learn another man is RP, it’s like the flood gates open.

And my nephew said almost the same thing to me as I pontificated about modern inter-sexual relations, specifically in regards to my frivorce. “Uncle Owen, it’s like there are two pills in front of you. A blue one and a red one.” From there, there was a knowing look and a two hour conversation began with his brothers listening intently.

My frivorce punched me square in the gut, but all of my nephews saw exactly what happens to a good, church (churchian) guy who places too much faith in his ability to defeat the hamster via “man up” and what happens to a guy in Family Court. It likely sent all the younger men searching for the answerin my family and extended family, no small number.

The answer to this is not only defiant resistance . . . but a concerted effort among the frats to convince their alums to publicly reconsider "institutional giving", that is, the big gifts that keep universities in buildings, endowments, and scholarships. Frats provide a disproportionate amount of institutional giving by alums, and universities know this. They even hire specialists whose job it is to twist more dollars out of alums near death.

But if the alums of these frats declared that they would suspend giving of all sorts until the frats were happy, you'd see a sea change in the way this is handled. Young SJWs might be vociferous, but nothing gets the attention of a university president like a $10 million endowment gift evaporating because of your stupid policy.

A shit storm I'd like to see is all fraternities declare themselves "male only" spaces, done under the guise of protecting the women. No women allowed ever, not for parties, socials, visits, even staffing. The male space that's been outlawed or eroded in ever other facet of society could come front and centre in the very bow of a man's life experience.